ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Current trends and barriers to video management and analytics as a tool for surgeon skilling.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe benefits of intraoperative recording are well published in the literature; however, few studies have identified current practices, barriers, and subsequent solutions. The objective of this study was to better understand surgeon's current practices and perceptions of video management and gather blinded feedback on a new surgical video recording product with the potential to address these barriers effectively.
methodsA structured questionnaire was used to survey 230 surgeons (general, gynecologic, and urologic) and hospital administrators across the US and Europe regarding their current video recording practices. The same questionnaire was used to evaluate a blinded concept describing a new intraoperative recording solution.
results54% of respondents reported recording eligible cases, with the majority recording less than 35% of their total eligible caseload. Reasons for not recording included finding no value in recording simple procedures, forgetting to record, lack of access to equipment, legal concerns, labor intensity, and difficulty accessing videos. Among non-recording surgeons, 65% reported considering recording cases to assess surgical techniques, document practice, submit to conferences, share with colleagues, and aid in training. 35% of surgeons rejected recording due to medico-legal concerns, lack of perceived benefit, concerns about secure storage, and price. Regarding the concept of a recording solution, 74% of all respondents were very likely or quite likely to recommend the product for adoption at their facility. Appealing features to current recorders included the product's ease of use, use of AI to maintain patient and staff privacy, lack of manual downloads, availability of full-length procedural videos, and ease of access and storage. Non-recorders found the immediate access to videos and maintenance of patient/staff privacy appealing.
conclusionTools that address barriers to recording, accessing, and managing surgical case videos are critical for improving surgical skills. Touch Surgery Enterprise is a valuable tool that can help overcome these barriers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.